Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'd like you to read the following link:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-blessed-are-the-tolerant

The author tells us that -

"There have been countless defences of the right
of people to be offensive and we've been told by
many that the proper way to express solidarity
with the victims and oppose the crimes is to
reprint the most offensive of the cartoons."

I find that logic strange.

Of course I fully understand that as the author
states that for freedom of speech to have meaning
people must be willing to say things that cause
offense, even horror, disgust and fury. That
the offended must be tolerant and find non-violent
ways of responding.

But should it really be just about finding new
and edgier ways of offending?

Should we not also look more closely at our own
boundaries of what can and can't be said?

cont'd ...

Let's try that link again:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-blessed-are-tolerant

Hi Foxy,

I guess it's a bit like the right to get divorced, you don't have to exercise it. But other people should have that right, even if you don't exercise yours.

I don't think that the 'offended' should have to be any more tolerant - do you mean 'turn the other cheek' ? Not to respond with offence ? - than the person who offended their ideas.

But I don't know what you mean fully when you suggest,

"Should we not also look more closely at our own boundaries of what can and can't be said?"

I'm more inclined to another point of view, in relation to Charlie Hebdo:

"From news reports coming out of Paris, there are .... some people who feel that the editor of the satirical magazine should not have poured oil onto the fire by deliberately knowing that his actions would provoke an extremist reaction...... did the Editor go too far. I don't think so, but then that's only my opinion. "

I agree fully with that opinion.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thanks for quoting me.(cute).

However, you need to read the link I gave in my recent
previous post - it explains fully the point
that's being made.

cont'd ...

Perhaps this link may clarify things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/14/giving-bigots-more-rights-wrong-response-charlie-hebdo-massacre

Hi Foxy,

I suppose it depends how you define 'bigot', and who decides who is and who isn't one.

If a bigot is someone who has an opinion which can't be shaken, no matter what evidence is produced against their point of view, then most of us are bigots, one way or another. Most of us hang onto an opinion, regardless: surely we've seen that often enough on these pages ?

As for who is to decide, we are in even deeper waters. Yes, in an ideal world, nobody would hold bigoted views - when evidence is produced against someone's strongly-held views, they willingly change them in the face of evidence.

Let me know when that ever happens :)

Love,

Joe